Gentle Reminder: Independents are not needed to win the Presidency

[Cali_Democrat]

Obama lost independents and still beat Romney in 2012:

Overselling the importance of independent voters
By Glenn Kessler

<...>

We don’t mean to pick on Beeson two weeks after the election, since his notion that independent voters were critical to the outcome was widely shared by reporters and political analysts.

The Wall Street Journal, for instance, offered this headline Nov. 5: “Votes of Independents Could Be Key.” The article noted that Mitt Romney had a seven-point lead among independent voters, in a WSJ-NBC News poll, and it quoted a pollster as saying the finding posed a problem for President Obama: “You are really flirting with trouble if you’re losing independents by this margin.”

So what happened? Obama lost independents by a margin of 45 percent to 50 percent — and he still won the election handily.

Indeed, in 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee, won the “independent” vote — 54 percent to 45 percent — and also lost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/overselling-the-importance-of-independent-voters/2012/11/19/1c04b598-3294-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_blog.html

[djean111]

1. Well then, no worries, mate! n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Independents remind me of that annoying diver on the freeway who keeps straddling two lanes

Pick a fricken' lane already!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

9. Problem is,

[marions ghost]

25. beautiful reply!

[merrily]

51. BOOM! And those lines are painted with colored disappearing ink.

They begin disappearing during the general. By Day 2 in office, you'd never know they were there, except for your pesky memory.

[cyberpj]

22. Really? U don't understand anyone who might like different candidates/parties?

You prefer straight-ticket voting?
Cool.

But some people do a lot more voting than just presidential elections every 4 years.

Personally, my local government has had many people I have voted across party lines for. They were simply better known to me and better for my own positions.

Another reason, I hear, people register as Independent is so they aren't bombarded by calls and literature during elections! LOL. They want to be left alone to decide for themselves.

To me, the only reason to have parties is to trap those who want to run for office into a set standard of policy that's already predetermined for them.

Yes?
No?

[fredamae]

30. Except Indies Are gaining

and Have acquired Major Political Party Status in OR and CT.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-oregon-independent-party-gains-major-status/

Other party's are also rising.
http://ballot-access.org/2010/11/02/political-parties-gain-qualified-status-in-some-states-lose-it-in-others/

What we "used to know" isn't anymore on many issues....imo

[roguevalley]

38. independents outnumber dems and pugs in my state and that's why its 14% more for Bernie

than HRC. You discount independents at your peril.

[fredamae]

41. And while it's easy to assume

these are disgruntled/disenfranchised GOP/Libertarians-It isn't that simple. The Dem Party is Bleeding members-especially over the past few elections.....It's a true mixture of People from mainly Both major party's..imo.
Dems are "building" numbers here..a bit-to be ready for the closed primary...but after that and at least by the General..they'll leave again because they do not feel the Dem party represents their values anymore.

A simple fact Dem Party leaders (including local state leaders) have intentionally Ignored, imo.

[Bad Thoughts]

32. Except they are not in the middle

The reason why "independents" did not vote for Obama in 2012 is because many of them were Republicans who quit the party in 2009-2010 because they wanted to punish Republican congressmen for cooperating with the White House and wanted them to investigate birtherism. There are genuine moderates, non-affiliated, that Obama won and whom Clinton or Sanders will need.

[JackRiddler]

45. Politics are not a highway.

Metaphors are often counterproductive to clarity of thinking.

[Csainvestor]

2. that is only if turnout is low on the republican side

it was low when romney ran. Turnout is much higher on the republican side now than it was when romney ran.

Independents will be needed on the democratic side to beat the other side.

[Betty Karlson]

3. losing the independents 45 to 50 would be way over Clinton's current polling.

Her numbers are disastrous with Independents, and the anti-establishment current among voters is several times stronger.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Do you have a poll showing the split in a Trump vs Hillary matchup? nt

Where are you getting your numbers from?

Thank you in advance.

[Betty Karlson]

10. One thing at the time, please. The primaries are still going on,

and so we would be discussing Clinton-Sanders match-ups, right? At least until the nomination?

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Umm...perhaps you missed the title of the OP and also failed to read the article. nt

[Betty Karlson]

18. Oh so you think the nomination is all wrapped up then?

Or is this a feeble attempt to counter the idea that actually, if you care about winning the GE, you have a way better chance with Sanders' cross-over appeal?

[revbones]

5. Sounds like you think Clinton's game plan might work then. Carry on.

Let her keep ignoring liberals and independents.

[Fawke Em]

60. ...and Millennials. eom

[gcomeau]

7. Umm.... genius?

That 45% of them he got? He loses if he doesn't get them. By A LOT.

So yeeeeeeah..... they are needed to win.

[jkbRN]

14. +100

[Schema Thing]

50. ^this

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Obama could _afford_ to get edged in independents. He had AA and young voters.

Hillary tanks dreadfully among the latter. Of course, she also tanks among independents.

Oh-oh...

[awake]

11. I am calling Bull Sh*t

There are not enough Democrats to win the Presidency with out independents! What world do you live in?

[DemocraticWing]

13. A majority of indepdendents is not needed. But we do need SOME of them.

If we got 0% of independents we'd lose 50 states.

[Uponthegears]

15. Yea

because Hillary is inspiring Democrats to come out in record numbers just like they did for Obama.

Seriously, I know you all Hillary supporters really do believe that Hillary is every bit as transformational a presidential candidate as Obama, BUT the fact of the matter is that IF she had succeeded in smearing her way to the Democratic nomination in 2008 the same way she is trying to smear her way to the nomination in 2016, we would be looking at the end of the McCain/Palin administration.

Secretary Clinton is not, and never will be, a better candidate than Obama AND for certain she will never be a better president.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. This time around we need them.

Make no mistake about it.

HRC is no Obama, and Bernie has the "socialist" thing to overcome.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. No...they're not needed. nt

[gcomeau]

21. Cali_Democrat, let me introduce you to math.

Math, this is Cali_Democrat. And math has something to tell you.

Obama's vote totals - Obama's independent voters = CRUSHING GOP VICTORY.


So tell us all about how they're not needed?

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. Good luck with that idea.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Thanks. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. If you REALLY believe that --

is the case this year you have deluded yourself and seriously misread the electorate.

[gcomeau]

19. EVERY time around we need them.

Obama gets slaughtered without that 45% of them he managed to secure. A detail the OP appears to be amazingly blind to.

[earthside]

20. But this isn't looking like a typical election.

A lot has changed in four years ... unaffiliated voters are at near record highs.

Furthermore, 2016 looks as if it may shape-up as a realigning election.
It would seem to be a risky strategy to disregard or underestimate the sentiments of 'independent' voters.


Why Independent Voters Will Propel Bernie Sanders to the White House
Tom Cahill | March 10, 2016

[AgadorSparticus]

23. I doubt know about that. It would be wise to not take anything for granted.

Hillary and Sanders should be courting everyone. Independents included.

[coyote]

27. Are you using core math to come to this conclusion? N/t

[Bad Thoughts]

28. Factor out the RW and Libertarian "Independents." They are really GOP

Democrats need the moderate independents, not those that are trying to hold the GOP hostage with their Libertarian bullcrap.

[ladjf]

29. Is there a point to this post? nt

[jeff47]

49. Yes...

The point is "stop talking about independents because we don't have a good answer".

[ladjf]

57. ok

[Jim Lane]

64. Thank you. I was just about to leave this thread, unenlightened...

but your explanation rings true. Now I can leave in good conscience, feeling fairly confident that I'm not missing anything but more bickering below.

[Cheese Sandwich]

31. Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama

Just sayin

[kiva]

33. You know there is a difference between

not getting any independent voters and getting fewer independent voters, right?

If no independent voters had cast ballots for Obama, he would have lost; instead he lost independents by 5 percent and won the election.

Which sort of screws with your "we don't need you theory" because presidential candidates do need a percentage of independents plus their party voters to win...but just keep on with that magical thinking.

[Bread and Circus]

34. I don't think she does.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. And yet in 2008, as a man seeking the office Obama constantly and specifically sought independents

and Republican voters whom he called 'Obamacans'. DUer Frenchiecat told me back then that the faith community and 'Obamacans' had taken the place of LGBT voters and made our issues unimportant to the Party, this is why Obama was doing those rallies with anti gay preachers you see, to prove his bona fides as a Christian and all.

So this train, it's a boring train. When I see suggestions that Bernie is bad for doing what Barack also did, it's either boring or bigotry. Which would you like me to say? I'm saying it's boring. For now.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Why should I care about a conversation you and Frenchiecat had 8 years ago?

[Herman4747]

36. SPECIOUS argument with invalid premise.

The argument seemingly is

Is it 1) necessary to win more than half of the Independents in order to win the General Election?
2) Obama did not win half of the Independents (he only won 45%), yet he still won the general election
3) Consequently, it is not necessary to win the Independents (that is, win more than half their vote).

But what Bernie supporters are most reasonably arguing is NOT point 1, but instead, " It is necessary to win a substantial number of Independents in order to win the General Election." And Hillary is doing VERY POORLY among the Independents!!!

It is hard to find a poll with a break-out of how Hillary is doing against Trump & Cruz for Independents only; but we can look at Hillary's favorability rating among Independents:

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/26/independents-like-hillary-clinton-less-than-in-2008/

Compare that to Quinnipiac's polling from this year. Between March 2015 and December, Clinton's net favorability -- those viewing her favorably minus those viewing her unfavorably -- sank from plus-3 among all voters to negative-8, an 11-point change. But among independents, that figure went from +4 to -27, a swing of 31 points.

This article was written in January; her favorability since then has undoubtedly declined notably further!!

45% of Independents found Obama favorable enough to vote for him. It would appear that if the Quinnipiac poll is accurate, only 36% (or so) of Independents are finding Hillary favorable. If that winds up translating to a low proportion of Independents ultimately voting for Hillary in the general election, then we find ourselves in a dangerous situation.

BERNIE IS A MUCH SAFER PROPOSITION!!!

[ibegurpard]

37. OK

You go ahead with just the 30 percent of registered and self-identified Democrats in the country and see how far that gets you.

[mathewsleep]

48. Pretty much this.

[Nanjeanne]

40. Good to know if Clinton is the nominee she can wrap this up without 43% of the voting population!

[Bucky]

44. !!

nice

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Then it's obvious that independents didn't swing the election to Bush in 2000.

A sentiment I wholly agree with.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. He still needed a big chunk of independents to win

Unless you consider 45% insignificant.

[jeff47]

47. We need independents. We don't need 100% of them.

But please, go forth with the strategy to win based on 30% of the electorate. It worked great in 2010 and 2014.

[jeepers]

53. She won the south with only

a 12% democratic voter turnout no independents needed. She got 450 delegates and because of those southern victories leads in the primary. Talk about a strong campaign. And lets not forget those rousing wins in Nv Mass and in Iowa

[jeff47]

54. All we need to do is only allow Southern Democrats to vote in the general

Then she'd be a good candidate.

[jeepers]

55. All of the southern states are winner take all

No democrat will win any southern state in the general = no electoral votes to any dem. This is where Hills strength lies. Lets not forget those three rousing victories in NV, Iowa and in Mass

[jeff47]

56. My post was a joke, involving disenfranchising the entire rest of the country.

The fact that it disenfranchised the rest of the country and more than half of the South should have been an indication is was not a sincere proposal.

[jeepers]

58. I understood

Using Hillarys 9 southern state delegate wins to claim she is the strongest candidate is the real joke

[merrily]

52. He must have swung someone. He won freaking Indiana in 2008.

(My deep apologies and much love and empathy to all Democrats in Indiana.)

[oasis]

59. Indys will either back Hillary or face 3 Scalia additions to SCOTUS.

[ladyVet]

61. And people wonder why Dem turn out is so low...

Let's keep telling all the Independents and liberals to sit down and shut up. We only need them for the elections anyway, right? That's the establishment belief, but they're ignoring our American Spring to their peril.

On second, thought....

Yeah. Independents. Who needs 'em?



Gonna be a shock coming to some people in November. Gonna be fun to watch.

[sadoldgirl]

62. Considering that even every half dead repug

will get to the polls to defeat HRC,

Considering that the repugs after 8 years of
a Dem WH are druling to get in,

Considering that the registered Dems are only
maximally 30% of the electorate,

I admire your optimistic illusion.

[beedle]

63. That was 2012, this is 2016

2012 there was 37% independents, 32% Dems and 25% Repubs
2016 there are 40% independents, 30% Dems and 24% Repubs

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/party-identification/

so we've gone from 5% lead in independents to a 10% lead dependents .... Obama won by slightly less than 4% of the popular vote in 2012.

Are you still so sure independents aren't needed?